The below newspaper article describes an amazing
venture in the cause of freedom in America, starting with the State of South
Dakota. There is not one person who is ignorant of the fact that
politicians cannot agree on anything. Basically, it just is
never done, including on non-partisan issues. Take, for example, the
confirmation hearings on the non-partisan appointment of Judge Alito to the
bench of the United States Supreme Court. The contest is the Republicans
versus the Democrats. However, I have heard that a day or two ago a single
Democratic Senator broke ranks to side with the Republicans. The point is, it is
a very cold day in the hot place when politicians unite, yet this is what
all the legislators are planning to do in South Dakota.

History records that two thousands years ago
the then-existing politicians (Pharisees versus Sadducees) fought each
other with fervor, and agreed upon nothing. Nonetheless, they managed to unite
on only one issue, and that was that an innocent Man should be nailed to a cross
for crimes He did not commit; and that a murderer and an
insurrectionist named "Barabbas" should be set free in His
stead.

Based upon the rarity of the chances that all the
Republicans and all the Democrats should openly agree uniformly to condemn
J.A.I.L. --that the J.A.I.L. Initiative, which seeks to make judges
accountable to the law, is either terribly evil, or immensely
good! In other words, J.A.I.L. cannot be considered somewhat evil
and somewhat good, a perception which normally splits the ranks of the
politicians down both sides of the aisle.

Do these legislators not know that
their historic and uniform stand against J.A.I.L. (Amendment E) is going to
make national news across this nation? Absolutely they know! So why, then, are
they deliberately taking such a political risk of laying their careers
on the line, even running the risk of trying to convince all their
constituents to vote NO on Amendment E ?

I shall now seek to unlock this mystery. On August
30, 2005, we reported, "A recent poll was
taken by the Argus Leader newspaper apparently in an attempt to influence South
Dakota J.A.I.L.'s impact in S.D. They posed the
following question to the people, 'Should people unhappy with a
judge's ruling have the authority to appeal to a grand jury for the right to sue
the judge?'Their
poll results reveals the following:

Yes:
49.2%No: 50.8% "

This self-made poll by our opposition revealed
some interesting facts. While the question polled to the South Dakotans was
absurd, it revealed that nearly one-half of the People are so fed up with the
judiciary that they were willing to support even the "J.A.I.L." that was being
described to them by our opponents, showing we had to win but one percent
more in order to prevail on the issue, even as the issue is described
by our opponents. Just think if the question had been correctly posed, i.e., "Do
you believe a judge should be able to be sued if he deliberately refuses to
obey his oath of office and the laws that govern his actions?" Why, I can
tell you that the results of that poll would be way up
near the top with only those benefiting from the corruption saying "No"!
Imagine the public's reception to a billboard, "Vote YES
on Amendment E, because judges are not above the
law!"

When I and others were out collecting signatures
from South Dakotans, more than 90 percent of those qualified to
sign, did sign. By and large, those refusing to
sign either worked for the courts, acknowledged they were friends
of judges, and/or were lawyers.

Many signed
the J.A.I.L. petition because they learned that judges
currently are immune from any lawsuits. Upon discovering this fact, the voters
expressed anger as they signed. And what is our opposition doing? They are
arguing that judges should be immune from lawsuits,
which is educating and angering the voters all the more in
favor of supporting Amendment E. No one
likes to think that judges are considered to be above the law.

Folks, I can tell you, to a reasonable certainty,
that despite all the ridiculous and absurd garbage that has been slung at
J.A.I.L. by the newspapers, you can be sure that our opponents have wisely taken
their own legitimate poll to see where they honestly stand among the South
Dakotans; and the results are not pleasing to them. Their behind-the-scenes
poll, known only to them, about which they dare not speak, reveals that if
the election were held today, they would lose big time.

Therefore, the system, including the Bar
Association and all the Legislators in the state are taking
a "no-holds-barred" approach in opposing Amendment E. After all, they
figure, "what have we got to lose?"

There is a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with
brilliance, then baffle them with BS." What is the penalty should the
electorate discover that all their legislators are scooping up BS
and serving it to them? Well, the risk is that they will lose to Amendment
E by an even greater margin. So they are facing the option of normally
losing to Amendment E in due course, or losing to the Amendment by an
even greater margin. They figure they may
as well go all the way and throw the BS vigorously, in the hopes that at least
some of it may stick on the voters going to the polls on November 7. God
forbid that someone should challenge their legislators to "prove up."

Such a project could very easily back-fire on all
these legislators. We will undoubtedly seek to saturate the voters in South
Dakota to not only go to the polls and vote for Amendment E; but while they're
at it, vote out their legislator if he is opposed to the Amendment, and
vote in the one who favors it. Could this be the making of another simultaneous
historic event of a clean sweep of all legislators?

Now let's turn to ethics. Is it not unethical for
a legislator to use his office telephones and staff to campaign for elections?
YES, indeed! Therefore, if it is wrong for one legislator to do so, would it not
also be wrong for all of the legislators to do so, by conspiring together to
pass a resolution against a measure in the public's interest, and using their
time and resources at taxpayers' expense to campaign against an issue on
the ballot? Here we have the people favoring Amendment E
paying for their legislators to campaign against their
interests. Would this not be grounds for a major scandal involving
numerous ethics violations? If all of their representatives are conspiring
together to campaign against an interest of the People, is this not the same
thing as "taxation without representation"? Maybe
this suggests some idea of what the first class action lawsuit
may be post November 7 -- "taxation without representation."

Finally, on December 27, 2005, the Argus Leader
reported, "Judicial review issue likely to spark more debate that '06
candidates," therein saying that Amendment E is likely to steal the show in
South Dakota when it comes to the November 7th
election.

PIERRE - South Dakotas
legislative leaders said Friday they are united in an effort to defeat a 2006
ballot initiative that would allow judges to be sued by people who believe their
rights have been violated.

If approved by the voters,
Amendment E  the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law, or J.A.I.L.  would
strip judges of their immunity from lawsuits stemming from their
decisions.

In separate news conferences to
discuss various issues, Democratic and Republican leaders of the state
Legislature said they would work together to let voters know about the amendment
and encourage them to vote no.

Senate Majority Leader Eric Bogue,
R-Faith, said there is a resolution in opposition to the measure circulating
among legislators. He said he was glad that Democratic leaders brought up their
opposition to the amendment in an earlier news conference.

It
demonstrates that this is a nonpartisan issue, Bogue said.

Its one of
the most dangerous things on the ballot, House Minority Leader Dale Hargens,
D-Miller, said. You are going to see an effort by the Legislature  not just a
few legislators, but the entire Legislature  to educate people on this
initiative and make sure it is defeated.

Hargens said the proposal
targets more than judges.

It goes farther than judges being sued by
someone who is unhappy with the outcome of his or her lawsuit, he said. You
can also go after county commissioners, city commissioners, township and school
board officials for things that they do in the official
capacities.

Hargens said if the amendment is approved, exposure to a
financial quagmire would discourage people from serving in public
office.

Rep. Joel Dykstra, R-Canton, assistant House majority leader,
said, It is important to allow those people do to their jobs without fear of
losing their houses as long as they are doing their legal duty. Out-of-state
proponents of the amendment have failed elsewhere and targeted South Dakota
because it is easier to get measures on the ballot and because it is relatively
cheap, in national terms, to advertise in South Dakota, Hargens
said.

They picked their battles well, he said.

Dykstra said the
nature of the opposition to the amendment shows that judges really are
nonpartisan in South Dakota.

Sometimes it is easy to adopt the national
sound-bites about activist judges, but that has not been the case in South
Dakota, Dykstra said. It isnt really a Republican or Democrat
issue.

Senate Minority Leader Garry Moore, D-Yankton, said it is
important for the voters  and legislators  to take time to become educated on
all the 2006 ballot initiatives.

Its going to be a huge ballot, he
said. People need to make informed decisions, because they are going to be
making decisions that will impact every single South Dakotan for a long time to
come.

Asked to speculate on whether all the members of the Legislature
will sign on to the resolution in opposition to the amendment, Bogue said: My
guess is you are going to see nearly unanimous support. I cant guarantee it
will be all 105, but there will be 102 or 103 people on
board.

Proponents of the J.A.I.L. amendment collected nearly 47,000
signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

That is 13,000 more than
needed to include it on the ballot.

The petitions were verified by
Secretary of State Chris Nelson in December.